![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Frustrated passenger? You're nothing but cattle, get used to it.
3 replies
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-405750-100x100.png\")
@krispykrink: Sheep actually, once fleeced of your money you have no further value and are nothing but a problem until you have enough money to be fleeced again.
Frustrated passenger? You're nothing but cattle, get used to it.
@krispykrink: Sheep actually, once fleeced of your money you have no further value and are nothing but a problem until you have enough money to be fleeced again.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-36686-100x100.png\")
As usual, my response is get a lawyer (and sue).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25946-100x100.png\")
@easy2panic: What amazes me is that even is he were \"faking\" blindness the actions of US Air/security were still completely out of proportion to the infraction of asking about the delay.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
@easy2panic: ACLU Baby!
Is he a citizen? if not look out US airways you may find a smack down of the international variety.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-719867-100x100.png\")
I agree and am usually against the standard response. But they won't learn any other way. Sue them!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-77651-100x100.png\")
\"When he refused to do so, he was dragged off the plane by three police officers, pinned into a wheelchair, held by the throat, lost the cane he uses to navigate, held at the airport for five hours without food, water, or access to any phone, moved to a 6' x 7' police cell at 3 a.m., questioned by a psychiatrist, and detained for 16 hours.\"
Oh. My. God. What right do these people think they have to push people around like this? A simple apology is not enough. I want to see people punished for their stupid and negligent actions. I think the worst part is that they held him by the throat. No! What the hell? No!! Fing physical abuse right there.
And when did faking blindness become such a serious offense that you could starve a person and then lock them up for no reason?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
He wasn't faking...the story said he really was blind. They thought he was faking because they were dicks.
@HogwartsAlum: I think Nitrokart understands that. The point is that even if he was faking, this isn't a reasonable way to treat them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1029606-100x100.png\")
On a flight to NOLA last year, a USAir FA rubbed my hair as I was boarding (I have it cut short for work) and said, \"Ooooo. Soft!\" Then,when I asked for my preflight drink since I had upgraded, I was literally barked at with: What cabin are you in? We only serve drinks to first class prior to takeoff.\" I politely informed her that I was in seat 2A. I got my drink, but felt a little violated and rather put off. But now I think I've got nothing to complain about. Why won't USAir just go away already?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-147087-100x100.png\")
@RogerTheAlien: That's nothing... I've come to accept the overworked and underpaid flight attendants. On a 13 hour flight to CDG on Air France in first class, I wore sweats, because it was a 13 hour flight. I was fully settled in my seat when the flight attendant came over and rudely and loudly assured me I was in the wrong cabin. Since I was fully settled, I'd put my boarding pass in my bag in the overhead, which meant holding up a bunch of people boarding just so I could prove someone dressed in sweats belonged in first class.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
@John Smith: LOL, that's a good one.
I agree with the other posters- inappropriate by anyone of any age or any gender. Even if it weren't inappropriate, it's highly unprofessional. \"Your hair looks soft\" is borderline. Touching it crosses a big fat line.
@John Smith: It's US Airways...chances are that the FA was either an old bag, so the response would be \"Oooo. Saggy!\" or a tranny.
@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29): Okay, good. I told some friends what happened and their response was, \"Well, it was an older woman, so it was more of a maternal thing.\" My thoughts were still like, \"No, it was pretty inappropriate regardless of age and gender. Especially given that that was literally the first thing that happened to me on board. No greeting or anything, just random head rubbing.
US Airways is a garbage airline. They don't even have the brutal efficiency of Southwest; it's simply the worst choice and they should just die.
If I wasn't already refusing to fly U.S. Airways, I would refuse to fly them.
Also, let's not forget to blame the self-righteous, minimum wage cowboys of the air: the TSA.
Apparently we don't have peace officers anymore, we have gestapo.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@chris_d: it's philly - they've never had \"peace officers\". gestapo may be going a little far though - they've never been that organized. man, do they love beating the shit out of people, though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406173-100x100.png\")
It seems like both parties are in the wrong.
\"Cantisani was asked to disembark.\"
At this point, whether the pilot was right or wrong, you have to disembark. That's the way air travel works. That's the law. You get off and then you complain or sue or whatever you want to do. But once you disobey the pilot, you're in a very untenable position.
\"When he refused to do so, he was dragged off the plane by three police officers\"
Regardless of his behavior, the way he treated is fairly typical of how airport police and security treat people. Which is to say, unconstitutionally and unconscionably.
I hope he sues. For a lot of money.
@twophrasebark: The blind man being asked to disembark could've posed some serious problems for him, especially if he didn't live in the area and is unfamiliar with the area this mess happened in. It's hard enough trying to get a hotel without a resservation, but try perhaps having no friends to rely upon nearby, no one to call and pick you up, nothing but a strange taxi driver and no specific place to go. We aren't told he lives in Philly or overseas, if he's leaving for a conference or returning from one, etc., but regardless, being a stranded traveler is scary enough without having the fact that you are blind be part of the situation!
It truly makes me feel that the Philly folk have no real investigative skills! It should take someone about a 10 seconds to verify if someone is blind or not without harming them in any way. It took law enforcement people ALL NIGHT LONG to figure it out? Wow, those are some real dumb cops.
This is a MESS, and is just a small tip of the kinds of problems that occur in airports daily.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387761-100x100.png\")
@twophrasebark: So an FA wants to do FA or simply doesn't like the color of your skin can ask you to get out and if you don't, you're arrested? They don't have to give a reason? And you defend such idiocy?
@P_Smith: Not the FA, the PIC. The pilot in command is completely responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.U.S. \"Pilot in Command\" FAA regulations
Under U.S. FAA FAR 91.3, \"Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command\", the FAA declares:[2]
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
ICAO and other countries equivalent rules are similar.
Especially interesting is FAR 91.3(b) which empowers the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. This provision mirrors the authority given to the captains of ships at sea, with similar justifications. It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other laws or regulations.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=48d3b14d9bd513dcc52104c2a65deed0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.2
The laws of the land apply while the airplane is grounded, the laws of the port apply while the ship is docked.
@WaltonHaemoglobin: see, i understand why this law exists & it makes sense, but who in their right mind can justify this as an emergency? that's where i take issue. \"blind guy confused\" doesn't constitute an emergency in my book.
i don't buy the whole \"anything i deem an emergency IS an emergency\" bullshit. the captain should have to justify his reasoning for invoking the rule, & if it's deemed that he's incapable of determining when an incident is an emergency, he should be reprimanded.
@mac-phisto: I agree to an extent. UI think the pilot should be required to justify his actions AFTER the fact, when the emergency is passed. I expect this is probably the case. But in the moment \"You HAVE to do what I say, and I don't have time to justify it to you\" seems reasonable to me.
@twophrasebark: Agreed. I sincerely hope that everyone involved in his kidnapping and interrogation loses their jobs and that he earns a healthy sum of money taken directly from their pockets. This is really just unacceptable beyond belief.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-762676-100x100.png\")
@zircon:
The poor bastard is blind, and English probably isn't his first language. I would be surprised if his \"refusing to get off\" was more like \"what? get off? no, I want to go home!\" and then they violated him.
People suck.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387114-100x100.png\")
@YouDidWhatNow?: The article says he's an interpreter. I'm pretty sure this means he translates things from one language to another.
You kind of have to be really good in both languages to do this.
@Poisonous Taoist: Nobody said which languages he speaks. For all we know he translates Flemish into Farsi, and speaks nary a word of English.
The size of this lawsuit will be giant. truly staggering...
@raleel: And the settlement will be reasonable. Nobody's gonna go bankrupt because of it. The insurer will evaluate the actual damages (not that high- probably some bruising and the loss of a day of time) and kick it up for the pain, inconvenience, and whatever emotional trauma he's claiming, and send him on his way with a nice, but not likely 7 figure, check.
Then US Airways will see their rates jacked until they can figure out how not to be morons. You then pay a little more.
(to be clear, I'm not defending US Airways in any way. that being said, the way people get dollar signs in their eyes for EVERY inconvenience is part of why insurance and, thus, services in general are expensive)
Usairways is the bottom of the barrel. I wrote them a letter stating I woudn't fly them anymore because of them charging for water. They never responded, but I've been flying United and Southwest ever since. The way I look at it, even if the fare is a few bucks more, I make up for that in whatever BS fees USairways is charging. I bet the next move is to for Usairways to have a stewardess camped out at the crapper asking 5 bucks if you do a number 2.
Sorry but how is it relevant that the guy is blind?
@Featherstonehaugh: There is the issue that he was accused of faking his blindness. But for me, the issue is that he was treated as a threat to the aircraft, passengers and crew. I'm sorry, but a sixty year old blind man who's lost his cane isn't much of a threat to anyone.
The problem is that security and law enforcement people no longer consider it their job to protect the public. Instead they see themselves as soldiers whose job it is to find and defeat the enemy. Any guesses who the enemy is these days?
@Featherstonehaugh: I think everyone is missing the point of Featherstonehaugh original post.
If this had happened to someone who isn't blind, it would still be a huge deal. No person should be: \"...dragged off the plane by three police officers, pinned into a wheelchair, held by the throat, lost the cane he uses to navigate, held at the airport for five hours without food, water, or access to any phone, moved to a 6' x 7' police cell at 3 a.m., questioned by a psychiatrist, and detained for 16 hours.\"
This kind of treatment is beyond unreasonable and should not be allowed to occur. For an industry that was bailed out by the federal government, they have strange ways of showing how much they appreciate the fact that they are still operating.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-550329-100x100.png\")
@John Smith: Agreed, this is unreasonable for anyone. Now imagine going through it when you're blind and in a foreign country. I say his blindness does factor into it.
@Featherstonehaugh: He also cannot see out the windows, as the other passengers can, and infer things about what is happening. Imagine being locked in a closet on the airplane while it's stuck on the tarmac. You're going to need someone to tell you what's going on.
@katstermonster: In fairness, he was traveling with his wife, who apparently can see and would have told him if she could infer anything visible. So there's no reason to think that any seeing passengers had more information than he did. They kept EVERYBODY in the dark. Which is so much better!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17469-100x100.png\")
@Featherstonehaugh: Its also relevant that they removed his cane which he uses to help him guide himself (sort of as if they put a blindfold on you cause its the way he would see) ad refused to tell him anything even though he couldn't see what was going on.
It's a disability. He is afforded more accommodation and protections under the law.
And one would hope a little more understanding and common sense.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327923-100x100.png\")
Can you imagine how long these Airlines would be in business if they had to be judged by their service and not always knowing that they can screw up and do what they want because they know that the Government and the tax payers will bail them out.
being blind myself, I hope this guy gets a good lawyer and makes the airline pay. thankfully, in my experience flying nationally and internationally, i've never really had a problem related to my blindness. Other than one time coninental gave me lip about my shepherd guide dog and an over booked flight. after some back and forth my dog and i got on the plane (sorry to whoever got bumped for my guide) and were on our way. i complained to the airline and got back a written apology and $200 voucher for a future flight. i've never flown that airline since.
@ZurielReptile: In that case, you should have been bumped, not some poor slob who had to miss their flight because of you. If there isn't room to safely accommodate you and your guide, you could have waited one flight. And on top of you getting preferred treatment, you complain about it to receive further compensation.
That was not the same as if there was room and they didn't just want the dog on the flight because someone complained.
@silver-bolt: Well, your poor slob who got bumped was probably the last one to book the flight, so maybe that person should have gotten off their arse and booked their ticket a little sooner. Also, you cannot bump a blind person from a flight because they need room for their guide dog. It's a major ADA violation because you're discriminating against the person for being blind and needing a guide dog for assistance. The airline was skirting the line of sleaziness and ADA violation, trying to pressure a passenger with a disability into giving up his seat because of his service animal.
I don't know what it is with you jackanapes who think that service animals shouldn't be allowed on flights or that somehow service animals shouldn't be considered medically necessary but you need to remember that guide dogs are the same as medical equipment for the purposes of the disabled person (and the ADA). You can't deny a person with COPD their medically necessary oxygen tank on a flight, you can't deny disabled people service animals. (As an aside: every time this comes up, I wonder if the service animal naysayers even realize that it's not just blind people who have service animals.)
If a rabid squirrel sneaked into your house one night and gnawed out your eyes, I'm sure you'd be the first ones in line for a guide dog and you'd trot out the ADA the first time you got treated like crap by someone just like your former self.
The whole point is to make life easier for people who have a harder time getting around than you do. There's nothing wrong with that, it's called decency and compassion. You'll probably need some help when you get older, so you'd better hope everybody you meet in the future doesn't have your current attitude.
@silver-bolt: uh, you realise the airplane is overbooked because of the airline, not the passenger? also, if you are transporting blind people (that sounded kind of weird), I think it is only reasonable to expect that they will have a guide dog. Thats one of the ways they get around. Its like having a medical transport on the plane and being surprised a nurse is coming, or that there are oxygen tanks with the passenger.
@redkamel: Actually, I have to agree with silver on this one. Overbooking on flights is SOP (whether or not it should be is another thread), and the standard rule is first-come, first-served. Generally, if you're denied a seat on a flight due to overbooking, it's because you got there later than others. I don't think the guide dog changes anything; two people traveling together won't be allowed to bump a single passenger 'just because', and if Zuriel really did use his/her disability to bump someone who got there sooner, than that's kind of sleazy, IMO.
Granted, those with disabilities get (and deserve) certain special accommodations, but getting special treatment that exploits a disability and directly impacts another person just seems wrong to me.
Now, obviously I don't know all the details of the situation, so there may be some very important fact I'm missing that makes this more acceptable. But by what I'm currently understanding, that just seems unfair.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-389492-100x100.png\")
@Alexander Saites: ah no, the department of transportation covers this one: [DOT disability accommodation regulations as provided on Delta's website]
[images.delta.com.edgesuite.net]
[pdf]
(ii) The carrier shall assign a seat meeting
the requirements of this section to an
individual who requests the accommodation
and checks in at least one hour before the
scheduled departure of the flight. If all
designated priority seats that would
accommodate the individual have been
assigned to other passengers, the carrier shall
reassign the seats of the other passengers as
needed to provide the requested
accommodation.
..........
(h) In no case shall any individual be
denied transportation on a flight in order to
provide accommodations required by this
section.
......
it goes on to talk about what is basically a first come, first served policy [by which they mean first booked] so whoever booked last gets bumped if they forgot to leave room for the dog
@Alexander Saites: Like reynwrap, I have to say the wording seems to indicate that he was about to be bumped because of the dog, NOT because he was the last one to book his ticket. This sounds like it happened at checkin for a previously booked ticket and was not the person that would have been bumped via SOP.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-496659-100x100.png\")
@Alexander Saites: The way it is worded in his original post, it sounds more like he and his guide had a seat but the airline wanted to bump him because they didn't want to provide a seat for his guide rather than for another passenger, not that they didn't have confirmed seats and demanded they be given them. You know how airlines often ask people to give up their seats on overbooked flights? It sounds like they put pressure on him to give up his seats because of the dog... which is pretty close to an ADA asswhoopin of epic proportions, I imagine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-33580-100x100.png\")
@silver-bolt: Wow...f you silver...heartless bastard...
You miss the part where the damn airline overbooked the flight? No, no, no, the role of \"devil's douche\" is more important.
Last I checked Zuriel was the one who overbooks the flight on purpose just to get that $200 credit. Damn he's done it countless times it's almost like the airlines are paying HIM to fly.
Go troll somewhere else...geeze...
@silver-bolt: I don't know much about ADA...but I'd say if he was able to indicate upon booking that he needed extra space, he's just as entitled to stay on the flight as everyone else. And regardless, I think the ADA can be interpreted to mean that the airline is NOT allowed to use his disability and/or service animal as a reason to bump him from the flight. They have to follow procedure, and thereby the last person to book gets bumped.
@katstermonster: The ADA is fun. If you have trouble keeping track of money or remembering telphone numbers, you are covered by the ADA.
@silver-bolt: It is obvious you are not permanetly disabled. There are legal protections for individuals with disabilities. Leveling the playing field looks like preference to you, but it really is about giving the SAME opportunities as you. Without the dog, their owners cannot move. It isn't like they have them for playing catch and teaching to sit up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-550901-100x100.png\")
This very well may be proven to be another story about airline employees. What airline management does not seem to understand is that no matter what transpired in this case, people perceive the airline is guilty. Then some folks will stop flying ...either USAirways or all together. Look how cruise lines are deploying ships up and down the east and west coasts and along the Gulf so passengers can drive to the port of departure rather than fly...and passengers are taking them up on it.
I can remember being mistreated by a TSA officer in Ft. Lauderdale, who separated me from my travel wallet. When I protested, he screamed \"Look around you! See all those cameras? No one will steal your wallet!\" I remained quiet so I would not get thrown in the pokie. But I guess the asshat did not realize that security checkpoints are one of the top areas where thefts of laptops and devices occur. Thank you for listening.
@AngelaChanning: What most people don't realize is that when you park the car to when you get on the plane you are on camera. I know some people that work in a midsized airport so I have this on good authority. That does not do a lot of good that does in a large airport if you need to catch a wallet thief but I see the TSA agents point.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@TEW: But the agent is an idiot, because the thefts at the security checkpoint (and I'm not talking just by the TSA, which is its own kettle of fish) are well known and well publicized, and the cameras haven't, as far as I know, helped in catching anybody who's committed them.
And if I know that, I suspect thieves know that as well.
@floraposte: yes, i just adore the videos that publicize just how the thieves make the switches and abscond with your stuff at security. it's like when the local news showed how middle schoolers get high by huffing fumes - on the 6pm news. not that most middle schoolers are watching the news.
public education in how to be a criminal
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-316976-100x100.png\")
Words can't describe how badly I feel for this guy after reading his story. He does need to sue, and I want the individuals who did this prosecuted. The airline and its thugs need to be taught a lesson here that will forever change how they treat their passengers. I hope we'll be able to hear how this all turns out.
What I wonder is why the TSA and local police enable this sort of behavior on the part of airline staff. If I were a law enforcement officer I might not appreciate being called in as the solution to airline customer service problems. Where is the airline staff's incentive to do their utmost to deal with righteously pissed off customers when they can just throw up their hands and have the complainers hauled to a cell?
If I were sitting in a coach seat, parked on the tarmac for 2 hours, and my concerns were met with \"Stay in your seat and STFU.\" I might become belligerent too. Likewise, I can see why the guy didn't want to get off the plane: It's an evening transatlantic flight. What happens when they boot him off the flight? He's separated from his luggage, left to find a hotel to stay in, probably wait the whole next day for the next flight. Does the airline even still honor his ticket? Or does the guy have to pay the walk-up fare for a one-way ticket to Belgium? I can't even imagine what that might cost.
@JiminyChristmas:
It would fall under the FAA, not TSA's responsibility. But yes this kind of behaviour is completely unnacceptable.
@JiminyChristmas:
And if you became belligerent, the flight crew has a legal and MORAL right to have you arrested. And local law enforcement would be more than happy to arrest you on a disorderly conduct charge. In many cases, it's the airport's police force (yes, real law enforcement officers, not rentacops). On a flight, the captain's word IS law, and he or she is held accountable. If you don't trust their judgement, don't fly.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-776577-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: Actually, when I read the article I came to no such conclusion.
Seems to me like you should reread it, and this time do it with your eyes open. Makes it easier to see what's printed there.
Look, the guy asked questions that any of us might be inclined to ask, and he was forcibly removed for it. The question he asked wasn't unreasonable or disruptive, and if I were blind, I'd probably react the same way if someone came up to me and tried to yank me off a plane for what appears to be no damned reason at all.
So no, the guy wasn't acting irate, abusive and uncooperative. At least not in the manner you're suggesting. Get over yourself.
at least he didnt have to see the philly airport. What a filth mound that place is.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-858304-100x100.png\")
@albokay: @Esquire99: He deserves to be kicked off a plan for being blind and not being able to see whats going on and someone else not telling him what is doing when he obviously can't see what is going on? I don't think that is a reasonable accommodation for him as is required and I don't think his request for information was unjust or unneeded. Plus as he was being dragged away, they probably told him nothing, so if someone put a blindfold over your face and dragged you off an airplane in a strange place than you would go quietly and without a fight? I think not
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-527174-100x100.png\")
I hope he sues the airline back to the fucking stone age!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
@FuryOfFirestorm: Remember, this is UselesS Airways...so there's not that far 'back' for them to be stone age.
BTW...that will be $2 for the reply to your comment :)
Yes, sue the airline.
I wonder whether the Danish government would be willing to get involved with this. They permit USAir to use their facilities and fly in their airspace. Don't know how they care about their disabled citizens. Just a thought.
Personally, I've had better experiences with USAir than with most other airlines.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
While it's reprehensible how the airline treated him, when he was asked to exit the airplane and he refused, he became wrong and deserves the charge for disorderly conduct. Further, if he did resist the officers as they attempted to remove him from the airplane that he had been ordered to exit by the pilot, he deserves the resisting arrest charge. As was noted above, the proper response would have been to leave the plane and then pursue them civilly. I wonder if he was abusive when he asked the pilot about the delay, setting off this unfortunate chain of events. Either way, when he refused to leave the plane he became wrong and deserves the charges that were ultimately levied. The treatment in-between is another story.
@Landru:
Ah yes, anyone with an opinion contrary to the masses is a \"shill.\" It's nice how you resort to personal attacks because we have differing opinions on this matter. God forbid you offer anything intelligent and thought-provoking to the discussion.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4587-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: I'm sure this guy was acting like an asshole, but when I see the words \"irate\" and \"unruly\" used in this type of story it really comes across as \"cover your ass\" PR speak to avoid giving specific details.
I agree that the story really lacks meaningful details. I mean, what does \"unruly\" it really mean? It could simply mean that he removed his seat belt and stood up. If not, at what point did he become unruly? Was it before or after they started threatening him with disembarkation? Was he the unruly passenger that caused the police to be called, or was it the other guy and was he just brought along for questioning the pilot?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-581631-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: \"the proper response would have been to leave the plane and then pursue them civilly.\"
But the airline didn't treat him civilly in the first place. If they had been kind and courteous and had explained to him what was going on (at least to the extent that the other passengers could discern by looking out the window), the situation would have never gotten out of control. He was simply asking for information on why the plane was on the tarmac for 2 hours, and they treated him like a criminal for it.
@Esquire99: The whole Patriot act gives the airlines a hell of a lot more control and your statement of \"he didn't leave when asked.\" is basically the grounds they will follow to get out of the lawsuit.
However the part after which where they treated him like a terrorist and questioned his disability is where they the police should be sued.
I don't agree with the way he was treated but unfortunately in this country fear made created the worst act in our history.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-887707-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: They did not have any right to ask him to leave the plane because he did nothing wrong.
A blind man cannot tell if police officers are really police officers. They needed to behave professionally and communicate with him properly. Obviously they would not since they had not been trained properly to deal with people of disability.
Maybe airlines should just ask YOU to leave an airplane for no obvious or legitimate reason, just out of the blue, to see if you don't put up a fuss about it such as asking \"why?\" (which would be classified as resisting).
@Skaperen:
It's their airplane and they have every right to ask him to leave for whatever reason or for no reason. If you read the article, it sounds like he was irate, abusive and uncooperative. That seems like more than enough reason to ask him to get off of the airplane. And he wasn't asked to leave \"out of the blue\". According to the article, he was irate and had \"had enough\". It's not like he was just sitting there minding his own business when he was physically removed from the plane.
@Esquire99: Wrong. The airline is a common carrier. They can't stick a \"we have a right to refuse service\" sign in coach. Their policies are based on safety, and I don't believe any reasonable person, let alone a trained airline official, would have considered this passenger a safety risk. I believe the airline agents and law enforcement were set on showing him who's boss, were ghastly and brutal about it, and it descended into a nightmarish scene. The officers involved will now retell the story in a way that blames the victim, in order to save themselves from public embarrassment and prosecution.
You're right; the victim should sue, and make it really hurt the airline and law enforcement agency involved. This is where torts and civil rights laws really matter. But I think criminal charges should be considered against the officers. Their brutal treatment of this passenger was way beyond civil. They were thugs from the opening shot.
@razremytuxbuddy:
I'll concede that I was over-broad when I said they could remove him for no reason. However, I think it's well within the airlines right to remove an unruly, irate and abusive passenger from the airplane. According to the article, it seems like the passenger here fit within that description. The officer, assuming he's being truthful, said they were called to remove an irate and unruly passenger. He doesn't have to be a \"Safety risk\" to warrant removal, but merely being abusive to the staff and unruly should justify them removing him from the plane. The crew shouldn't have to tolerate abusive passengers. The article lacks sufficient facts to determine exactly what happened, but I think it's fairly clear that this guy was far from a model passenger. The fact he admits that not being given attendant service, among other things, was the \"Straw that broke the camels back\" and that he stood up and refused to sit down when instructed makes it no leap in logic to conclude that this guy snapped and probably made a scene, which warranted removal.
@Esquire99: I have no doubt that the passenger was angry and mouthed off at the crew, and maybe wouldn't sit down. He was probably being a jerk. He probably violated airline passenger rules, even if just technically. But his behavior became just a footnote when the case became about how the airline agents and law enforcement thugs manhandled him and incarcerated him for hours. Their behavior was inappropriate, outrageous, mean and possibly criminal.
Rodney King was driving drunk when the police stopped him and beat him up. We all saw how that case turned out. This passenger was just a Belgian interpreter. And a blind guy. And pretty old. The airline and security agents screwed up to the point where the passenger's behavior is virtually irrelevant.
@razremytuxbuddy:
With regard to physically removing him, how else are they supposed to remove him? He was gripping the seatbelt to hold himself in place and refused to leave. Were they just supposed to give up and let him stay on the plane? I agree that what ensued after the removal, if true, was uncalled for (holding him without food, etc.), but I have not problem with them using force to remove a passenger who won't leave on his own. The fact he is blind is irrelevant. He was doing everything he could to physically resist being removed. At that point, using physical force was justified.
@Esquire99: There was no need to remove him. The agents decided to show him who was boss, by forcibly removing and punishing him for being angry and frustrated. They could have merely seen to it that he was made relaxed, comfortable and informed. And yes, his being blind and old is relevant. Those were substantial factors any reasonable and competent agent would have considered in determining that he was not a threat and did not need to be removed.
You're determined to go down swinging in this argument, but the fact is, his technical violation, if any, became a red herring when the officials used it as an excuse to be mean and brutal.
@razremytuxbuddy:
Once the Crew determined he needed to be removed, it wasn't the law enforcement agent's place to decide that he can stay. The flight crew made a determination that an unruly passenger needed to be removed from the airplane. The passenger refused to disembark on his own. Law enforcement was called. He still refused to exit the plane. At that point, the law enforcement officer's job was to remove him by physical force, no to overrule the flight crew and make sure he was \"comfortable.\"
When he refused to exit the airplane as instructed by the crew, he became wrong. Whether he was a true \"Threat\" or not is beside the point. The flight crew has a right to refuse to carry an unruly and abusive passenger. They decided to refuse to carry this guy, because he was unruly and presumably abusive, and he refused to comply with their order to exit. The physical force became legitimate when he refused to leave, and resisted (by holding onto the seatbelt) their attempts to remove him with minimal force.
@Esquire99: So the flight crew's defense is they removed him because they can, and then law enforcement's defense is, \"I did it because they told me to?\" And then they can forcibly remove him, rough him up, and confine him for hours without food? And whether he was a threat is beside the point? Wow.
I'd say, whoever was calling the shots wasn't qualified to determine how to handle him when he was still on the plane. From there, the situation spiraled from bad to worse, and no one with any authority ever stepped in or was brought in to say, \"we need to handle this differently.\" In the end, when the verdict is read, I predict this passenger's behavior will be a minor detail.
It seems to me that what we have here is the product of eight years of fear driven by our \"homeland security\" and TSA. All of us are suspect when we enter the airport or airplane. The writer Kafka would have a field day with what goes on everyday at our airports. I have tried to avoid flying because of this, and until some sanity returns to our good land I fear that this kind of nightmare will play out time after time.
Blind, eh? How'd he know the room was 6'x7' hmm?
But ya, US Airways sucks and there staff sucks. Avoid them at all costs... and definitely NEVER connect through Philly!
@lonestarbl: being about six feet in height, if i were in a cell for any ammount of time, i could easily figure out if it were six by seven. i'd barely have room to strech if i decided to lay down.
@lonestarbl: Maybe the reporter found out? Maybe the blind man figure it out by feel? Doesnt require much imagination.
First prize is one week in Philadelphia. Second prize is two weeks in Philadelphia.
The rules under which he was asked to leave were in place long before the Patriot act - they're based on international law going back to sailing ship days.
From [www.popehat.com] -
The PATRIOT Act only changed one rather minor aspect of the interference statute:
2001 Amendments. Pub.L. 107-56, § 811(i), inserted \"or attempts or conspires to do such an act,\" before \"shall be fined\".
In other words, the PATRIOT Act made it illegal to attempt to do or conspire to do the things already prohibited by the statute.
I see the airline is still living up to the name of U.S. Scareways.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-859532-100x100.png\")
What everyone seems to have forgotten is that the stewardesses and general flight crew have realized that they can do ANYTHING to a passenger, and get away with it. After the 911 episode, the power given the flight crews is absolute.
Of couse they will do anything they please!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-926607-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: From the article:
\"Shortly afterward, another passenger made a remark about the crew, prompting three Philadelphia Police officers to escort that man off the plane, Cantisani said.
Then, police tried to remove Cantisani as well, he said.\"
So it sounds like someone else did make \"a scene\" or inappropriate comment, and Cantisani was taken away - either because the crew wanted to get rid of him, the police became confused, or because he was actually being disruptive.
Whether or not he got agitated, upset, or whatever is unclear from the article.
@veg-o-matic:
I agree the article is very poorly written, but look at these quotes from police and from the airline:
\"Vanore said that Cantisani had been asked several times to leave the plane but continually refused.\"
\"A U.S. Airways representative said Cantisani was an unruly passenger who had refused to exit the plane.\"
\"Lt. Frank Vanore, a police spokesman, said the police were called to Gate A-19 because of a disorderly passenger.
\"A passenger had become irate over the delay,\" Vanore said.
Cantisani, unaware of why he was being removed, refused to leave.\"
It's not clear if they were called specifically because of him, or if he was simply also removed for being unruly. Per U.S. Airways, he was indeed unruly and refused to disembark when asked to do so. I don't think he's any more believable than U.S. Airways's rep is. I'd love to see some eye-witness accounts of the event.
@undefined: @Esquire99: You want an eye-witness account? How about the blind account of a disabled man who was hauled off a plane by THREE security guards, interrogated, called a liar, and then detained in a small cell with no food for 16 hours. I don't care if he was Chuck Norris; what the airline did was highly unprofessional and disgusting. There will be no wrist slap on what can be described as a black bag op on a DISABLED man. Because, you know, blind people are just DANGEROUS.
@MercyEleusis:
His account is just as biased as the Police's account. He leaves out the details that make him look bad, the police/US Air leave out the details that make them look bad. His blindness has little relevance to the way he was treated. If he was not blind and was being a rude, unruly, abusive jerk because of the delay, no one would bat an eye at him being forcefully removed after he had refused to leave on his own. However, as soon as the person labeled \"disabled\" his credibility becomes beyond reproach and he is seen as a \"victim\" regardless of what he did to incite the situation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-261962-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: The fact that he is blind makes a HUGE difference in how he was treated. Unless you think blind people are somehow more trusting when you grab them by the neck and say, \" don't struggle I'm a police officer. I'm not just some random guy assaulting you so calm down!\"
@madog:
Perhaps you missed the part where his wife was sitting next to him on the plane. Further, given the context of the situation, I doubt he had much reason to doubt he was being removed by law enforcement. Again, this wasn't happening in a random park where he was alone and minding his own business. He was making a scene on the airplane and refused to leave when ordered to by the flight crew. He was wrong.
@Esquire99: Verbal abuse =/= physical and mental abuse. And this might come as a shock to you, Herbert Spencer, but someone who can't see usually DOES have to be treated in a different way than others without a disability on the account that THEY CANT SEE(I notice you put the word disability in quotations...lets rip out your eye balls and see if you want to treat blindness like it's water on a stone then). By law, I should add further, regulated by the same unprofessional jerks that took a complaint and turned it into a Gestapo interrogation.
@MercyEleusis:
You believe a passenger has the right to verbally abuse the flight crew? They should have no power to remove a verbally abusive and unruly passenger? Or are they just prohibited from removing a passenger who is unruly and abusive and also disabled?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219008-100x100.png\")
Sue, honey, sue.
Maybe the reason he didn't get off the plane immediately when told is because he's blind and had no idea where he was going or how to get there? I mean, obviously he's a lot more capable at being blind than I would be, but it still makes everything a thousand times more confusing and scary. You say he shouldn't resist the police, but considering he can't see what the hell is going on, he probably jumped out of his skin when they grabbed him and started to fight back. This is why we make allowances for blind people; it sucks not being able to see.
@Ashley Penney:
His wife was on the plane next to him. I think that alters the calculus quite a bit. And I can't imagine the police walked up, and without any sort of verbal warning at all, and grabbed him. He made a scene, refused to leave, and was physically removed.
Throw the bastage in gitmo.
Let's assume 1% of the population is just a pain in the ass. (It's probably more like 5% IMO). Unfortunately, on a flight of 200 people you're likely to have at least 2 pains in the asses on board. And usually, most pains in the asses don't realize they're pains in the asses and therefore cannot interpret the situation reasonably either. So since the majority of the airline staff was likely sane and reasonable, I'd have to think there's more to this story than we have heard.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87239-100x100.png\")
Truly reprehensible behavior on part of the airline staff, the cops. In excusable. Completely.
SOMEONE in power needs to do something about this - I have an idea!! We make ALL our government officials fly coach for 1 WEEK, and believe me, things would change uber uber fast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-451623-100x100.png\")
There has to be more to this story. In law enforcement cops are taught there are 3 sides to every story, His side, Her side and the Truth. The same can be applied to any confrontational scenario.
The side note is why in the heck did he go to Philly?!? I grew up there and will be the first to admit it is a filthy city (aka Filthadelhia) and the people are not exactly hospitable. I moved out as soon as I could once graduating college. Best move I ever made.....
@jake.valentine:
EXACTLY. We only have 1 full side of the story, and a portion of the cops/airlines via the quotes in the article. He claims he was as peaceful as a lamb, simply politely asking for an update. The cop says he was acting like a wild animal. I assume there is a passenger somewhere who has an objective eye-witness account that falls somewhere in between. However, in the eyes of most of the commenters here his side is the only true one, and it is to be believed regardless of the circumstances.
What the airlines should be REQUIRED to do is give everyone honest updated every fifteen minutes of what is going on.
These were linked on the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHufRW67dY&feature=related
Another side to the story.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-299304-100x100.png\")
brilliant find - this actually changes my viewpoint 180 degrees. Turns out it's irrelevant that the guy is blind, he's just a jerk who's standing up in the plane yelling, here's part 1:
- and here's part 2: - where he's screaming at the top of his lungs and refusing to stand up when the officers are calmly asking him to leave the plane. This guy is a trouble-maker, \"plane\" and simple. Anyone who disagrees with this, watch the cell-phone videos of the actual incident, and then see how you feel. The problem with disorderly conduct charges, and why those laws should be narrowed significantly, is that they create a kind of circular logic where officers act however they damn well please. By pointing out an officers belligerence, you yourself are being belligerent, and the officer is then entitled to escalate things even further. Simply disagreeing with an officer, or invoking your rights to know what you're being arrested or detained for, should never be grounds for arrest unless there is an immediate, credible threat in the situation. And this situation, from the facts provided, doesn't meet that.
@Sean Hussein Siberio:
They don't have to have a reason to arrest him to remove him from the airplane. The captain ordered him removed from the aircraft because he was causing a disturbance and being unruly. The police were there to remove him after he refused to leave. This is no different than being removed from any other private business after the owner has demanded that you leave. He wasn't initially arrested for questioning the officers. He was arrested for physically resisting them after he was given numerous opportunities to voluntarily comply with their lawful order that he exit the airplane.
While I agree that disorderly conduct is way too broad, I feel like it's warranted in this situation. Look at the video. He WAS being disorderly. He was being a belligerent jerk, yelling and screaming for no reason (other than the escalated situation that HE caused). His conduct far exceeded simply questioning the officers intentions.
I watched the youtube videos, and yes, the passenger was angry, and I'd say he turned into a jerk. The more the agents tried to force him to comply and conform, the angrier he became. According to one of the youtube commenters, law enforcement used a hold on him that is designed to inflict pain and compel his cooperation that way. He kept asking, what am I charged with? In response, the officers merely tried harder to pry him out of his seat. It was everything I was imagining when trying to guess the circumstances yesterday.
The situation was so wrong, and it happens way, way too often on commercial airlines these days. A customer who is uncomfortable or who has been treated like dirt by the airline tries to correct the situation and is punished. There are numerous opportunities for the airline crew to diffuse the situation with basic human interaction and by applying a little human dignity to the situation, but they either don't recognize these opportunities, or they just prefer the punishment route. The airlines are failing so badly here.
This passenger became an angry, frustrated jerk. Most people know that no matter how angry or uncomfortable you are on an airplane that is sitting on the tarmac for hours, and the only information you are given is lies or no information, you stay in your seat and shut up for fear of outrageous consequences. This story shows how severe those consequences are.
None of this even addresses how he was restrained and incarcerated once he was removed from the plane. That in itself is simply unbelievable.
@razremytuxbuddy:Hi there! Welcome to today's episode of \"You Don't Get It.\"
If the airline fucks with a passenger (especially a special needs passenger) until he gets pissed off: Guess what? That doesn't put him in the wrong.
He's not a jerk, he's a normal person who has been pushed and pushed and pushed. You pay out the ass for this service, and then they fuck you. I for one feel completely entitled to fuck with them right back. So, you're right, none of it justifies what they did, so why are you posting?
@P.T.Wheatstraw:
They weren't \"fucking with him\". There was a delay. It's air travel. Delays happen. If you don't like delays, fly privately. It's usually not their fault there is a delay. Air travel is a complicated and is affected by many different forces, most of which are outside of the airlines direct control. If you can't handle being delayed, find another way to travel.
@razremytuxbuddy:
Yep, he absolutely deserved to be removed. It seemed like the crew was trying to calm him down and he just kept yelling and being belligerent. At that point, the Crew was completely right to remove him.
He's on an airplane with at least one hundred other people who shouldn't have to put up with some jerk yelling and screaming about a delay (Which are common in air travel). Not to mention the fact that the crew shouldn't have to put up with him. The gave him at least 3 minutes of warnings, telling him he was going to get up or be physically removed. He chose to be physically removed, yelling and screaming the whole time. He knew precisely what was going on and made a conscious decision to resist the officers.
The fact they didn't tell him the \"charge\" is irrelevant. For one, the police don't make a charging decision, the prosecutor does. Second, he doesn't have to be \"charged\" with anything to be removed from a privately owned aircraft, common carrier or not, once he became a problem passenger.
Visitors to the States may find this PDF of use:
I think this may be the most applicable part - it states:
\"IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer might make the police suspicious about you.
If you are asked to identify yourself, see paragraph 2 above.
2. Police may \"pat-down\" your clothing if they suspect a
concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it
clear that you don't consent to any further search.
3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a
right to know why.
4. Don't bad-mouth the police officer or run away, even
if you believe what is happening is unreasonable. That
could lead to your arrest.\"
I agree that the passenger seemed frustrated and angry. I wonder if he had anything to drink when waiting in the airport? He reminds me rather of my father (who was also an older European man), and who was proud of sticking to his principles (ie, the plane shouldn't be late), even when best not to push the issue. Stiff necked, and unlikely to apologize without being pushed into it. However, being treated with courtesy may well have avoided the entire situation.
I can't see that being frustrated and angry is such a problem that it warrants being thrown in a cell for hours!
@Hollasa: \"However, being treated with courtesy may well have avoided the entire situation. I can't see that being frustrated and angry is such a problem that it warrants being thrown in a cell for hours!\"
I think you captured the essence of how I see this situation. However, I'm not letting the passenger off quite as easily as you do. Losing control of your anger and frustration in public is weak and childish. He's old enough to know better.
@Esquire99: Anyone can read the law. But that doesn't mean you have to use the extreme power the law gives you, and then some, when a lesser more humane option might solve the problem more efficiently. (Example: Getting a warning instead of a speeding ticket.) Otherwise, screaming and unruly toddlers would have to be removed from airplanes all the time. The airline crew failed badly at the earliest stages, by escalating rather than diffusing the situation. (I've seen it happen way too often on planes.) Then law enforcement drove the failure home with their ghastly treatment and confinement of the blind passenger after the fact.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109419-100x100.png\")
US Airways is so customer oriented. There's the problem.
Not to make fun of blind people (honest. I admire people who have to deal with a handicap); but I remember watching a Super Bowl where Stevie Wonder had front row tickets on the 50. Seriously he wouldn't have know if he were in the nose bleed section.
You peoble just don´t get it; that kind of treatment is what you can expect to see -and worse , in the future; the mysterious powers that be ,obviously is pushing an agenda to militarise the world into one big KZS-lager, and using the atmosphere for gas-chamber (chem-trails,remember?)and are hiring the most dumped down,brainless,sadistic losers that finally get a chance to get paid for taking their inferiority-complexes and violent minds out on ordinary,intelligent and in particular good-looking peoble who they envied before. Give a little idiot a cap and a ticket-cutter - and you have a Napoleon -mini-me. WAKE UP - the NAZIS are trying to come back GLOBALLY:
There's an accidental splinter in the tagging of US Airways-related stories here...
What I can't stand is some of the replies here that say both parties 'seem to be at fault'. America needs to get good and damn mad about this stuff. American consumers are 'being handled' now. Americans really have no rights anymore. Now it's guilty until proven innocent and the accused is prosecuted in the public media, without a trial and without representation, except those deemed necessary by the producers of the show. Consumers need to revolt, but they don't. They make excuses thinking this will never happen to me, or I just won't complain, or I am too nice for this to happen. *If* (And I'm not saying they are in this instance.) the passengers are standing by watching this, then they need to stand up and protect the innocent. Put yourself at risk and fight for what's right. In my view, each and every passenger that could have fought for him, chose to just stand by and watch. Not to mention the people who work for the airlines apparently none of them, not one of them stood up for this passenger. What, a job is worth your soul now. There are no words for a company like this, except they need to be put out of business. What they did to him was criminal, period. Of course America is just a bunch of self absorbed megalomaniacs and way too self absorbed to care about anything anymore, even America, or the innocent. Americans should be ashamed of themselves.
My question is: what are they going to do when they do this to the wrong person and find themselves opening their eyes in their bedrooms to a gun and a knife? Eventually, that's what will happen, you know. They'll push someone over the edge and wake up to a new nightmare in which their badge means nothing.
Can you say \"It soon will be pay the blind man day\"
If he has nightmares about this I would say he has a good case. He could probably sue and get a decent settlement. It cannot take hours to prove yourself to be blind. I'm guessing most doctors can figure this out pretty quickly.
I've flown through PHI once and have placed it on my airports to avoid list. They allow more flights than they have capactiy for, which leaves planes sitting everywhere, either waiting for a gate or waiting for the runway.
That a blind passenger had to ask what was going on, shows the pilot was not communicating what the delay was. Anytime I've been on a plane that seemed to be sitting for longer than expected, the pilot mentions the delay and expected length of the delay.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Hard to believe something like this is allowed to happen. I hope he sues the airline and the cops, and walks away with enough to buy his own damned plane.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-872073-100x100.png\")
prolly too late for puns... bet he didnt see that coming
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-112580-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-59017-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-60062-100x100.png\")
They should be in danger of losing their business license for this atrocious behaviour.
shame on you, u.s. airways.
@JoshReflek:
I'd like to hear the other side of the story before I make a judgment. I fly 4-5 times a month, and I've been stuck on the tarmac before.
Depending on the type of plane, and since it was international, I assume it was large, you typically don't \"ask the captain why there was a delay\".
I'm guessing this guy became irate, physically got out of his seat and attempted to question the captain, was told to leave, didn't, had to be forcibly removed, was still irate, and was thrown in a room to cool down.
Should the airline have been more forthcoming with info on the delay? Sure. Should this guy have gone up to the cockpit demanding answers? Hell no.
If you're going to fly on a plane with a hundred other people, you better stay calm like everyone else.